slkinsey

This should be largely dependant on the size of the water bath. I've been using a 5 gallon stock pot for mine, and I can't think that a couple of frozen strip steaks will drop the temperature all that much. And, of course, the temperature of the water bath isn't as important as the temperature of the food. Presumably the water bath will come up to temperature long before the steaks. Joe: Why not "pre-freeze" the steaks a little, hit the exterior with a blowtorch, bag and freeze, go directly from the freezer into the water bath for cooking, and then do a finish sear (potentially also with a blowtorch)?

Exactly. I suppose I'm less enthusiastic about it (although, of course, I may go anyway) because a) I am in Texas and North Carolina multiple times a year, and b) I've already been to the last 4 BABBP events. If I were a first timer who didn't already have pretty regular access to excellent Q, I might feel differently. But, realistically, let's figure one Bubba Fast Pass and two people waiting in different VIP lines coordinating by telephone. Let's further assume that these two people aren't interested in buying barbecue from any of the NYC establishments. That leaves about 8 pits they might like to try. We're talking, then, about paying a hundred bucks to wait in line for something like 3 hours per person (this does not include time spent actually eating the food). Or, of course, they could wait in line together for 45 minutes and spend their hundred bucks at Mitchell's -- which wouldn't be a bad plan.

That's a misunderstanding on your part, I'm afraid -- at least in the context of the materials use in cookware. Obviously, one can reach a point where thermal mass becomes so great that it overcomes the advantages of thermal conductivity and restricts responsiveness -- but these conditions aren't generally found in cookware. Yes, it's true that responsiveness and thermal mass are always opposed when thermal conductivity is the same. For example, a 2.5 mm thick copper pan will be more responsive than a 5 mm copper pan, and this difference in responsiveness is largely explained by the difference in thermal mass. However, in comparing iron to copper, the thermal conductivity is not the same. Not only is the thermal conductivity not the same, it's radically different. Think of it this way: If you have two Toyota Corollas, and one weighs 2,500 pounds and the other weighs 3,200 pounds, the lighter Corolla will be quicker to speed up and slow down. If, on the other hand, you take a 3,200 pound Ferrari F430, I think we all understand that the Ferrari will be quicker to speed up and slow down than the same weight of Toyota. In this example, weight is like thermal mass and engine power is like thermal conductivity. In terms of thermal capacity, it's simple math. Take a cast iron skillet and a copper pan of similar thermal capacity. Heck, take a copper pan with a larger thermal capacity -- use one that weighs a little more than the cast iron pan. Heat them up on the stove. See which one takes longer to heat up and which one takes longer to cool down. If you do this experiment (which I've done) you'll see that, despite having an equivalent-or-larger thermal capacity, the copper pan is still much more responsive. As a friend was just saying to me, it's possible to understand that you can empty out a barrel faster than a bottle of the hole in the barrel is big enough. This goes directly to the "heat faucet" examples in my eGCI class. Anyway... I hope this makes more sense. If you've read "much more rigorous analyses" of cookware materials, please provide a link or a reference. I'd certainly be interested in reading them.

Am I the only person who's a little "over" the BABBP? I'd absolutely be up for going down there again if I had any sense that I'd be able to buy a Bubba Pass and not have to wait in interminable lines -- but even the VIP side was clogged up last year. And, as much as I love barbecue, waiting in line for 45 minutes to get a plate of pulled pork is losing some of its allure. Granted, I don't entirely understand the economics of the thing, but the best the express side ever worked was the day the retail machines broke and they simply handed out food to anyone on that side who asked. Unless they predict that this would ruin the financials, I don't see why they don't do this again. There's no reason people who spend a hundred bucks for special access to express lines should have to wait more than 5 minutes for a plate of barbecue.

Read eGCI Class on cookware and all will be explained. In short: Yes, it is possible to be both responsive and to have a relatively high thermal capacity, so long as thermal conductivity is high enough. Yes, copper and iron have very similar thermal capacity by volume, and therefore copper and iron pans with similar thickness will have a similar thermal capacity. Yes, the reason iron pans take so much longer to heat up and cool down compared to copper pans of similar size and thickness is almost entirely explained by thermal conductivity. Yes, the main heat-related difference between iron and copper as they are deployed in cookware is conductivity. And, yes, this is a huge difference (4.01 W/cm/K for copper versus only 0.80 for iron).

fwiw, the Grimes review credits him with it. You mean this review? Doesn't seem that way to me. If he gives anyone credit, it seems to be Bastianich and Batali, but other than implying that he doesn't fully believe their schtick that "their way with raw fish is a venerable Italian tradition, indulged by humble fishermen up north along the Adriatic coast and down south from Naples to Sicily" he doesn't say much about who came up with the idea. And, to a certain extent, how could he have known when writing that review that crudo -- as executed and largely popularized by Pasternack at Esca -- would come to be such a popular culinary meme?

Excellent! They really deserve a re-review. It's interesting to me that Pasternack doesn't seem to get the credit he deserves for more or less "inventing" crudo (aka, Italian-style sashimi).

Often, yea. But it definitely has its drawbacks from a maintenance standpoint. In terms of performance, a nice extra-thick iron pan (either enamel clad or seasoned, depending on the application) would have an edge when it comes to cooking applications in which one would like to have constant, unchanging heat.

I don't think they have "officially opened" yet. I have the feeling this is the "soft opening" -- which, of course, is harder and harder to do in any meaningful way in today's era of eGullet, Chowhound, Eater, etc.

I was at their F&F, and won't say anything detailed since it was a shaking-out period. But I will say that we were very favorably impressed, and all signs point to continued high quality from the Landmarc crew. I think this will be the perfect combination of the quality UWSers crave (and which is in unfortunate short supply on the UWS) and the price point/value proposition UWSers are looking for.

It is true that iron has a higher specific heat than copper (specific heat being the amount of heat Joules it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree). I wouldn't say it's a big difference, however. Iron clocks in at 0.449 J/g/K versus 0.385 for copper. But copper is more dense than iron: 8.96 g/cm^3 versus 7.87 for iron. When you combine these to get specific heat per cubic centimeter, they are very similar in their thermal capacity: 3.53 J/cm^3/K for iron versus 3.44 for copper. This means that, if iron and copper pans have a similar thickness -- and most iron pans are unfortunately no more thick than heavy copper pans -- the heat capacity is just about the same. Having a relatively high thermal capacity is actually an advantage of copper. What makes it especially advantageous is that it is also extremely responsive. Think: freight train that can turn on a dime.

There's been a setback on the NYC bonded applejack front. Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor, the distributor carrying bonded applejack in NY, closed its warehouse in Guilderland on March 31 and is being purchased by the New York division of Southern Wine & Spirits. In New York, Charmer Industries, Inc/Empire Merchants, LLC carry regular blended Applejack. If we want bonded applejack to continue to be available in New York, pros should lean on their Charmer reps to stock bonded applejack, and customers should ask their favorite liquor stores to do the same.

The BTU (that's British Thermal Unit) can be described as the amount of thermal energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. When speaking of cookware, one should properly say BTUs per hour. So, for example, a 1 BTU stove burner would be putting out the amount of thermal energy required raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit every hour. As Steven points out, it's a good measure of a stove burner's power, whereas temperature is not. For example, you may have an acetylene torch that burns at 1000F. That's a very high temperature. But it's also a small flame. It's not very many BTUs. If you're trying to boil 10 gallons of water, you're better off with a lower temperature burner but one that is much larger. What's the difference? The larger, lower temperature burner is pumping out way more BTUs than the smaller, higher temperature blowtorch. Ultimately, there is only so high the temperature can be on a commercial or residential natural gas stove. It's unlikely that the burner temperature on a Viking stove is meaningfully higher than it is on my Crapmaster 9000 NYC apartment stove. The difference is that the Viking burner is pumping out a lot more thermal energy, aka BTUs.

I wonder how the tin of Rösle's Boston shaker compares to industry standard? I've noticed that a lot of the strainers I've seen that look like the Rösle strainer are way too small.

I don't know! But I'd like to know. I predict that it will lead to a "less sticky" surface. One notes that modern cast iron seems to have a rough cooking surface, even when well-seasoned. Antique examples, however, tend to have a glass-smooth cooking surface. Most people, myself included, report better performance from the old stuff. But who knows, without trying it? Unfortunately, no one seems to he able to get their mitts on any.

Octaveman, I wonder if the vast array of whisks you see available for sale is another example of professional specialization bleeding over into the home kitchen. This has clearly happened with knives, for example. There are peeling, trimming, fluting, bird's beak, sheep's foot, and utility paring knives in a variety of lengths. There's no way the home cook needs 10 different kinds of paring knife (although I'm sure some buy them all anyway). But the point is that, if you're working in a professional kitchen and you're making 250 fluted mushroom caps every night, it's nice to have a fluting knife. Similarly, if you make a big batch of roux-based gravy every day at work, it might make sense to have a specialized whisk that is optimized for mixing up fat and flour in a large flat pan. But, in both cases, unless one is a collector like andiesenji, the specialized knife and whisk are overkill for a home cook.

Re Peach Brandy: One hopes that, with the rise of small-batch artisinal distilleries, someone will take it upon themselves to revive this liquor.

Dave and George: Would this have been slices of lemon/lime fruit, or peel?

Yea. Rittenhouse bonded makes an awesome julep.

If'n you're agin it, I'se agin it too. What you say regarding glassware makes plenty of sense with respect to professional bars (it's still fun to use metal cups at home). Now, if only more of them would stock fresh mint leaves and properly crushed ice... I'm also with you on getting away from the Kentucky hegemony of bourbon orthodoxy. I like juleps will all kinds of base liquors (try a genever julep sometime!).

Interesting, Dave. You're not fond of metal (silver?) julep cups? Also, do you find that shaking produces a notably different result from simply dumping in the ice?

I understand the distinction you're making, John, and I've made it myself. But I'm not sure I'd say that the cooking with which you grew up represents the state of mainstream Italian-American cooking during those times. I'd say that mainstream Italian-American cooking (and, to a large extent, culture) in the US evolved largely from Italians who emigrated to the United States in the largest wave from the late 1800s to the beginning of World War I and their descendants. We're talking about spaghetti with meatballs and Sunday gravy. I have a hard time believeing that the kind of linquini with clam sauce your family might have made was the same as what was being served in Italian-American restaurants in the 60s.

If doing the pureed clams trick, which I've done with chowder, I'd recommend using frozen chopped chowder clams. It would be prohibitively expensive to do this with littlenecks (which are anyway less flavorful than chowder clams, albeit much more tender) and if you simply steam and puree whole chowder clams without engaging in a good bit of nitpicky cleaning, you're not going to be happy with the color. I bet the Ducasse/Psaltis chowder uses pureed razor clams because they have a large proportion of pink meat.

Dean, I wonder if your frustration is due to the fact that you may be trying to make a dish that has the intensity of the Italian-American version (made with canned clams and extra bottled clam juice or chicken stock) using Italian ingredients and techniques. I'm going to suggest something radical: This is impossible. I don't think there's any way to get that intensity of flavor using nothing but fresh clams, garlic and herbs. This has something to do with the migration of what we think of as "the main event" as Italian cooking migrated into Italian-American cooking. I have noticed (and have noted in these forums before) that, as certain dishes and styles of cooking were transformed by the Italian diaspora in America, what was originally thought of as a condiment or enhancement came to be regarded as the focal point of the dish. In the Italian aesthetic, the pasta itself is the most important part of the dish, and the sauce should never be so abundant or intense that it obscures the experience of tasting and eating the pasta. As a result, many Italian pasta dishes have a meager amount of sauce, and especially the seafood pasta dishes can be quite delicately flavored compared to their Italian-American counterparts. In the most common Italian-American aesthetic, on the other hand, the sauce is the most important part of the dish, and the pasta is normally little more than a vehicle swimming in sauce. So, I'd suggest that there are three paths you can take: First, you can just do it the Italian-American way and use extra clam juice. Second, you can adjust your expectations to something lighter and more pasta-centric, and do it the Italian way. Third, you can make adjustments to try to get the Italian-American flavor using modified techniques. For example, you could get some chowder clams and puree them to ramp up the clam flavor. You could just cook the dish with a ton more clams and reduce the liquid. You could melt in an anchovy. Of these methods, only the last one strikes me as "Italian."

Absolutely not! I would be willing to bet that if you took a survey of Italian-American restaurants in America, or even on the Northeastern Seaboard, at least 75% of them are either incorporating grating cheese into the dish or offering grating cheese at the table to go with the dish. I'm not saying that "cheese with seafood" reflects my own preferences and practices, or that it reflects those of more recent Italian immigrant culture. But I do think it reflects the reality of most mainstream assimilated Italian-American cooking.